This piece is part of my “Arguments” series. In this collection of posts, I examine and respond to some of the most common arguments used to defend the exploitation of animals or to criticise veganism.
These articles are not intended to be exhaustive treatments of each topic. Rather, they are designed as practical reference pieces, helping readers reflect on these arguments more carefully and respond to them in a thoughtful, informed way.
You can find other entries in this series here.
The Claim
This argument suggests that if humans stopped breeding animals for food, farmed species would gradually disappear. It is then claimed that continuing to exploit and kill these animals is somehow in their own best interests, because it ensures their continued existence.
In other words, we are told that breeding, exploiting, and slaughtering animals is a form of care. This reasoning is deeply flawed. It assumes that animals only have value if they are profitable to humans, and that a life of exploitation is better than no life at all.
The Short Answer
If we stop eating farmed animals, there is no reason to assume that they would suddenly go extinct. Their populations would gradually decline because humans would stop breeding them at current industrial scales.
Farmed animals exist in such vast numbers only because they are deliberately bred for profit. If demand falls, breeding falls. That means fewer animals would be brought into existence over time, not that existing animals would disappear overnight.
A smaller population of animals living longer, healthier lives in sanctuaries or care settings is ethically and environmentally preferable to billions being bred into short lives of confinement and slaughter.
The fact that we created these animals for exploitation does not mean we must continue exploiting them to justify their existence.
The Detail
Fewer Animals Would Exist, Not None
If demand for animal products declined, fewer animals would be bred into existence, as explained in my previous article in this series on overpopulation (1).
This would not mean the sudden disappearance of all domesticated animals, it would mean a gradual reduction in numbers. Many animals would continue to live in sanctuaries, rescues, small-scale care settings, and private homes, as already happens today for the lucky few (2). Around the world, thousands of non-profit organisations and individuals care for farmed animals without exploiting them.
There is no reason to think that this would suddenly stop. What is far more likely is a much smaller domesticated animal population, where those who remain are cared for rather than commodified.
Fewer Animals Would Be a Positive Outcome
A large decline in farmed animal populations would not be a tragedy – it would be an environmental and ethical improvement.
Today, the vast majority of large animals on Earth exist only because humans breed them for food. Wild animals have been displaced on an enormous scale. Research shows that:
- About 60 percent of mammal biomass is livestock.
- Only around 4 percent is wild mammals.
- The majority of bird biomass is poultry, not wild birds (3).
This means that animal agriculture has radically reshaped life on Earth. Reducing the number of farmed animals would free land, reduce emissions, protect biodiversity, and allow wild populations to recover (4).
From both an environmental and ecological perspective, fewer farmed animals is a desirable outcome.
These Animals Are Not “Natural”
It is also important to recognise that modern farmed animals are not natural populations. They are the product of intensive selective breeding and genetic manipulation. Examples include:
- Chickens bred to grow so fast that many suffer heart failure or cannot walk.
- Dairy cows bred to produce several times more milk than their ancestors.
- Turkeys bred so heavily that natural reproduction is often impossible (5).
These animals exist in their current form only because humans engineered them for maximum productivity. They are not stable, self-sustaining species that would thrive outside of industrial systems.
To argue that we must keep breeding them because we created them is circular reasoning. We are told:
“We made them this way, so we must keep exploiting them.”
There is no moral validity to that claim.
Existence Does Not Justify Exploitation
Even if some modern breeds were to disappear over time, this would not justify continuing their exploitation.
We do not normally think it is better to bring individuals into existence only to exploit harm and kill them, rather than not bringing them into existence at all. Very few people would accept this reasoning in other contexts. We do not generally believe it is morally good to create beings for the purpose of exploiting them.
A much smaller population of animals living longer, healthier lives in sanctuaries is ethically preferable to billions living brief lives of confinement and slaughter.
What This Argument Really Reveals
In practice, very few people eat animals because they are worried about extinction. People eat animals because:
- They enjoy the taste.
- They are used to it.
- It is socially normal.
- It is convenient.
The “extinction” argument is usually raised after the fact, as a way to rationalise existing behaviour. It attempts to turn exploitation into an act of kindness.
That is why this argument is so cynical; it asks us to believe that exploiting and killing animals for profit is something that we do for their benefit rather than ours.
Summary
If animal consumption declined, fewer animals would be bred into existence. This would result in smaller, more sustainable populations, not total extinction.
Many animals would continue to live in sanctuaries and care settings. Meanwhile, a reduction in farmed animal numbers would benefit ecosystems, wildlife, and the climate.
Modern farmed animals are artificially bred for productivity, not wellbeing. Bringing animals into existence for exploitation cannot be justified by appealing to their continued existence. This argument does not defend animal agriculture, it only reveals how dependent it is on treating animals as commodities.
Bibliography
- Our World in Data. “Meat and Dairy Production.”
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production - Farm Sanctuary. “About Farm Sanctuaries.”
https://www.farmsanctuary.org/about/ - Our World in Data. “The Biomass Distribution on Earth.”
https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass - Poore, J., and Nemecek, T. “Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts Through Producers and Consumers.” Science, 2018.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216 - Ritchie, H., and Roser, M. “Animal Welfare.” Our World in Data.
https://ourworldindata.org/animal-welfare
Support independent, research-based advocacy
Helping keep free, educational content online
